On Roman Catholic Authority

[JesusforMadrid]

I have a number of sincere questions about Roman Catholic authority. I am trying to understand how Roman Catholics think and why they think that way. After trying to wrestle with issues on the periphery of the faith and getting unsatisfactory responses at times on questions that divide Roman Catholics with other Christians, I have come back to this: Authority. It is perhaps, I think, the core issue that divides many of us, regrettably.

1. I have read that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Roman C doctrine? Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace?
2. I have noticed that many RC apologists have difficulties in defending certain RC doctrines. For example, the otherwise well argumented Catholic Christianity, by RC apologist Peter Kreeft, is in my opinion markedly weak in defending such doctrines as the Assumption of Mary or the sinlessness of Mary. Yet, in spite of the difficulties, he makes the attempt because he is trying to explain the Catechism. On Catholic Answers, it seems that posters feel obliged sometimes to present even the most fatuous defenses of RC doctrine, again in my respectful opinion, on such issues as Marian devotion. Is RC doctrine such that you must accept it all or accept none of it? Is there a certain “domino theory” at work, that if a rather minor aspect of the modern RC faith such as, for example, purgatory, were to be put in doubt, the entire faith would come crashing down?
3. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium? Does authority come from the perceived granting to Peter the keys to the Kingdom as Pope? Or does it come from the perceived holiness of the bishops? If the Pope and a majority of the bishops were not leading holy lives, would the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture on issues such as the Assumption or birth control still be binding on all Roman Catholics?
4. A number of councils and popes prior to Vatican II have pronounced that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Following Vatican II, Evangelicals and Othodox believers are now considered “separated bretheren”. I have heard all the explanations for this and how this does not really represent a change in doctrine. However, I remain unconvinced. Can the RC church change its doctrine so radically in this and other ways and still maintain “authority”.

Thanks, sorry for the prolix questions and God Bless.

 

[DeFide]

Hi JfM,

Could you pose one question per post? You’ll get better and more numerous replies, and it will be much easier to follow.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I have a number of sincere questions about Roman Catholic authority. I am trying to understand how Roman Catholics think and why they think that way. After trying to wrestle with issues on the periphery of the faith and getting unsatisfactory responses at times on questions that divide Roman Catholics with other Christians, I have come back to this: Authority. It is perhaps, I think, the core issue that divides many of us, regrettably.

1. I have read that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Roman C doctrine? Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace?
2. I have noticed that many RC apologists have difficulties in defending certain RC doctrines. For example, the otherwise well argumented Catholic Christianity, by RC apologist Peter Kreeft, is in my opinion markedly weak in defending such doctrines as the Assumption of Mary or the sinlessness of Mary. Yet, in spite of the difficulties, he makes the attempt because he is trying to explain the Catechism. On Catholic Answers, it seems that posters feel obliged sometimes to present even the most fatuous defenses of RC doctrine, again in my respectful opinion, on such issues as Marian devotion. Is RC doctrine such that you must accept it all or accept none of it? Is there a certain “domino theory” at work, that if a rather minor aspect of the modern RC faith such as, for example, purgatory, were to be put in doubt, the entire faith would come crashing down?
3. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium? Does authority come from the perceived granting to Peter the keys to the Kingdom as Pope? Or does it come from the perceived holiness of the bishops? If the Pope and a majority of the bishops were not leading holy lives, would the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture on issues such as the Assumption or birth control still be binding on all Roman Catholics?
4. A number of councils and popes prior to Vatican II have pronounced that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Following Vatican II, Evangelicals and Othodox believers are now considered “separated bretheren”. I have heard all the explanations for this and how this does not really represent a change in doctrine. However, I remain unconvinced. Can the RC church change its doctrine so radically in this and other ways and still maintain “authority”.

Thanks, sorry for the prolix questions and God Bless.

These are all good and worthy questions. May I make a suggestion that you ask the Forum to delete this thread and start four new threads addressing each of these issues? I think it will make for a more illuminating discussion on each issue. Granted, they are related such that there will be some similarity of argument but they are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate threads.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is this a double thread?

 

[Church_Militant]

: Authority. It is perhaps, the core issue that divides us.

A good point, but not so. The core that divides us is actuallly the error of Sola Scriptura, which is to some extent linked, but not for this discussion.

1. I have read

that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Catholic doctrine? Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace?Can you provide documentation from Vatican II? The fact is that unlike n-C denoms we do not generally attempt to make statements as to the final end of any person. “Outside of saving grace” is not something that we are in a position to discern with respect to anyone but ourselves. There is always an open course to reconcilliation.

1. I have noticed that many RC apologists have difficulties in defending certain RC doctrines. For example, the otherwise well argumented Catholic Christianity

, by RC apologist Peter Kreeft, is IMO markedly weak in defending such doctrines as the Assumption of Mary or sinlessness of Mary. Yet, he makes the attempt because he is trying to explain the Catechism. On Catholic Answers, it seems that posters feel obliged sometimes to present even the most fatuous defenses of RC doctrine, again in my respectful opinion, on such issues as Marian devotion. Is RC doctrine such that you must accept it all or accept none of it? **If a rather minor aspect of the modern RC faith such as, purgatory, were in doubt, the entire faith would come crashing down?**I believe in all the teachings of the Catholic Church and I am quite satisfied with the Biblical teachings that have been offered in support of them. The problem with n-C religion is that they seem unable to draw valid, logical, conclusions from the Word of God. in so doing, I have concluded that the things the Catholic Church teaches make infinitely better sese than the teachings form outsider her.

You conclusion is badly flawed since there has been no refutation of Catholic beliefs that will cause such doubt. (And I think I have seen almost all of them.). Basically, in spite of some 500 years of efforts, our opponents have not produced a new arguments that have merit. All have been refuted and all again, nothing is new. If I was a non-Catholic…I think the reverse would be the case and take the hint.

1. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium?

Does authority come from the perceived granting to Peter the keys to the Kingdom as Pope? Or does it come from the perceived holiness of the bishops? **If the Pope and a majority of the bishops were not leading holy lives, would the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture on issues such as the Assumption or birth control still be binding on all Roman Catholics?**Are the moral failings of your own pastors and leaders evidence to indict the truths of Christianity that you believe? Why then do you use that same faulty measure to judge Catholic beliefs and leaders?

The authority of the Pope and magisterium is Biblical and secured by the very promise of Christ Himself that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church and there is absolutely no evidence that the incidents that you have cited have in any way affected the dogmatic truths of the Catholic faith. (Matthew 16:18)

1. A number of councils and popes prior to Vatican II have pronounced that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Following Vatican II, non-Catholic believers are now considered “separated bretheren”. I have heard all the explanations for this and how this does not represent a change in doctrine. However, I remain unconvinced. Can the RC church change its doctrine so radically in this and other ways and still maintain “authority”.

This is easy. Your trinitarian baptism is the link that allows Catholics to accept you as fellow believers, albiet, seperated by your clinging to the errors of post reformation theology. (Before you ask, you cannot share communion with us because you reject the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and that creates a very imperfect union with the church. If any of you do believe in the Eucharistic Real Presence, then you should examine the other things that you have been taught and consider whether you should remain outside the Catholic Church.)

There has been no such “change” in church doctrine in the case you cited. If you are a trinitarian baptized believer and yet remain outside the Catholic Church, you are in a defacto imperfect communion with us.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

 

[Michael_Francis]

Is this a double thread?

Not any more…
MF

 

[Eden]

Thanks, sorry for the prolix questions and God Bless.

I have always thought of the word “prolix” as a signature of bibleapologist.

bibleapologist:

As usual, the disparaging nature of your prolix has left me weary.

bibleapologist:

You have shown nothing in your prolix to scripturally refute my arguments, except to reiterate that this is what the Catholic Church teaches…

Bibleapologist last visited Jan. 2 and JesusForMadrid joined Jan. 3.

Hmm… connecting the dots…

Bibleapologist, is that you?

 

[scylla]

Let me answer number one for you as best as I can, if my wife lets me spend more time on the computer, then I will continue to answer.

Yes this does mean that they are in danger of not being saved since they reject certain parts of the faith, in charity people are trying to coax them into fidelity.

We cannot say for certain they go to Hell as God decides that and only God know the state of someone’s soul. But we can certainly state conditions in which you jeopardize your salvation, but ultimately it is up to God to decide your destination.

So in order to be obedient to God we must submit, in order to teach truth the Church must teach submission to God and truth. They cannot state that people are going to Hell but can certainly confirm the necessity of sticking to truth and submitting to Gods will or risk damnation.

Anyone who defines the faith based on their own personal understanding instead of submitting to God makes themselves God. By not trusting in God’s ability to maintain truth and have it available for us to know they unknowingly make themselves the definers of truth. So instead of having the mind of obedience they have the mind of defiance, which puts you directly at risk of damnation if they do not repent from this prideful stance.

A person who rejects Church teaching on Birth Control knowingly puts themselves above God, this doesn’t deny them grace as God can give them grace anytime He wants, but it certainly puts them at risk for damnation as they are rejecting God knowingly and can certainly reject God’s grace.
Catholics believe that God respects our free will.
Sin is a rejection of God’s grace, but God always is inviting people back to Him.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[scylla]

Let me try and answer number 2 real quick.

The faith is all interrelated so many Protestants realize this and in order to discredit Catholicism realize that all they need to do is prove one part wrong and the whole thing comes crashing down. Catholicism is a monolith it doesn’t change so yes there are plenty of attacks and the Church leaves itself open to them as truth is held by the Catholic Church so they have nothing to worry about.
This doesn’t stop Protestants from trying as many Protestants identity depends on rejecting Catholicism.
I would suggest you read the Peversion of Protestantism to see this.
www.lulu.com/arm
lulu.com/content/166102
Ignore the tone and see if the author makes valid claims and is honest in his presentation. If you have a question the author invites you to call him.

Now if you accept the authority of the faith the Jesus founded then no real explanation is necessary, as we humans are flawed and need explanations depending on the amount of faith we hold explanations are provided. For those with no faith no explanation is sufficient and it progresses to those with real faith no explanation is needed.
Which is why it is difficult for Protestants as they reject the authority of the Catholic Church so even explanations are usually rejected unless they open their hearts to considering the possibility that it isn’t some great big scheme and many Catholics are sincere.

So a common tactic for Protestants to lure people out of the Catholic Church is to attack with a shotgun effect searching for a weak point in someones faith, so yes attacking and finding one point such as Purgatory is key to many Protestant attacks. Regardless if there is an answer to one objection another is brought up without realizing that one answer proves the objector false and Catholicism true.

Like this, if one objects to Catholicism and one objection to Catholicism has an answer then the system that provided that objection was proved to use dishonest means to further the faith, while Catholicism just needed truth to vindicate itself.
This is an indication of which system is based on truth and which isn’t.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[scylla]

Number 3, real quick…

Infallibility is based on the power of God and the requirement that truth matters for salvation.
Since Jesus taught truth 100% and set up a perfect faith then would truth only matter in the days of Jesus or also now?

The truth does not depend on the holyness of the Priests, Bishops or Popes or else the faith would be a man based system. Any true faith must be based on God and be perfect so the truth is preserved regardless of the failings of man.
Remember how Saint Peter denied Jesus? Did that change Jesus’s teachings? No and it also did not change the infallibility of Peters words which are preserved in the Bible and very clearly in the two books he authored.
So even though he sinned God maintained truth in the teachings, and must allow truth to be known today or else we can believe whatever we want.
Since religion demands submission to God we cannot believe whatever we want or else we decide God’s truth as opposed to following God. The only way that we can know God’s truth is if there is a united faith and truth that is infallible and accessible to us.
This is denied by everyone except for Catholics, no one claims an infallible faith system which is available but if you believe in God there must be one, or else He doesn’t care what you believe.

If you say that rape is wrong but rape someone that doesn’t make your statement a lie but just makes you a hypocrite. Hypocrites state truth all the time, their actions do not negate the truth that exists.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Hey Catholic Answers: Can you split my OP into 4 different questions, 4 different OPs?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Number 3, real quick…
If you say that rape is wrong but rape someone that doesn’t make your statement a lie but just makes you a hypocrite. Hypocrites state truth all the time, their actions do not negate the truth that exists.

In Christ
Scylla

Hey Bro, thanks for your thorough responses, which raise a lot of other questions.

I certainly believe that truth is objective and doesn’t depend on the communicator of that truth. St. Paul quoted pagan poets, refered to “unknown Gods” and said that “all things are ours…the present, the future… for those who are in Jesus Christ”. For the Christian, all truth is our truth, even if it comes from Richard Dawkins!

On the other hand, the Holy Spirit does guide us to the truth, so I would not, for example accept the inspiration of a Non-Christian in matters of scriptural interpretation.

I think one of the basic differences in our perspectives is that I, as an Evangelical, think that it is not only acceptable to question our pastors and churches always on doctrine and on even the most basic issues (yes, even the Trinity), I think it is blessed. We are blessed when we “scrutinise their words” relative to Scripture, as the Bereans did, and we “don’t quench the Spirit” regarding prophecy, for example, “but test it”, as Paul asked us to do.

For the Roman Catholic, they cannot actually be good Berean Christians, if I understand correctly, because rejecting a particular RC doctrine that doesn’t conform with the Scriptures (for example, in my opinion, the sinlessness of Mary), implies rejecting the Magisterium, thus rejecting the Church, thus rejecting Christ himself and thus, rejecting eternal salvation.

The RC faith seems subject to the domino theory: My faith falls completely if I reject one aspect of RC teaching, even if I do so as the Bible instructs me, when I am guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is a huge difference between how Evangelicals and RCs view authority.

I need a bit more time to think and reflect about your comments–unfortunately, my wife is not as understanding as yours!

Blessings to you.

 

[Todd_Easton]

JesusforMadrid:

1. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium? Does authority come from the perceived granting to Peter the keys to the Kingdom as Pope? Or does it come from the perceived holiness of the bishops? If the Pope and a majority of the bishops were not leading holy lives, would the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture on issues such as the Assumption or birth control still be binding on all Roman Catholics?

How many Scribes and Pharisees were corrupt? Yet, Jesus’ words to the crowds and to his disciples were: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” (Matthew 23:1-3) For Catholics, the bishops of the Catholic Church, as it were, sit on the Apostles’ seats, and the bishop of Rome sits on Peter’s seat (the Chair of Peter). Holiness is a desired quality in bishops but it is not necessary to teach with authority.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Hey Catholic Answers: Can you split my OP into 4 different questions, 4 different OPs?

Nope, but you can do it yourself by copying & pasting points 2-4 and then making each one a different OP of a new thread. (It would have been better if I could have PM’d this message to you. You need to go into your profile and fix that.)

I think CM showed that the current post can be answered as is though.
Figure it out and PM me and I’ll try to help.
MF

 

[kaycee]

1. I have read that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Roman C doctrine? Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace?

The Roman position:

Vatican I states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

“Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end”

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Nope, but you can do it yourself by copying & pasting points 2-4 and then making each one a different OP of a new thread. (It would have been better if I could have PM’d this message to you. You need to go into your profile and fix that.)

I think CM showed that the current post can be answered as is though.
Figure it out and PM me and I’ll try to help.
MF

OK thanks.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

The Roman position:

Vatican I states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

“Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end”

Thanks for your response. So what the RC church is saying is that justification by “faith” is not simply putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Saviour and God. It is also putting your faith and trust in:

1. The RC church’s interpretation of Scripture
2. The RC’s additions to Scripture, which are not contained in Scripture, which is believes have come through tradition
3. The RC church’s view on morality, including such issues as birth control.

Have I got this right? I don’t want to misrepresent the Roman position.

Assuming this is right, it would then follow that liberal Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng, are not justified (or “saved” in Evangelical terminology) in spite of having been baptised, and thus are rejecting eternal life.

Regarding #3, it would also follow that the more than 80% of RCs in the US that use birth control, or the similarly high number of baptised RCs here in Spain, that use birth control, are not justified (or “saved”) and are also rejecting eternal life.

I think I am now even more confused (or surprised) than before, but I thank you for graciously bearing with me.

 

[scylla]

Hey Bro, thanks for your thorough responses, which raise a lot of other questions.
No Prob​

For the Roman Catholic, they cannot actually be good Berean Christians, if I understand correctly, because rejecting a particular RC doctrine that doesn’t conform with the Scriptures (for example, in my opinion, the sinlessness of Mary), implies rejecting the Magisterium, thus rejecting the Church, thus rejecting Christ himself and thus, rejecting eternal salvation.

The RC faith seems subject to the domino theory: My faith falls completely if I reject one aspect of RC teaching, even if I do so as the Bible instructs me, when I am guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is a huge difference between how Evangelicals and RCs view authority.

I need a bit more time to think and reflect about your comments–unfortunately, my wife is not as understanding as yours!

Blessings to you.

I would agree that the faith fails completely if you take things to your own understanding, which is precisely what Christians are not supposed to do. Trust in God with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding.

So I have more freedom than the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to test Paul, I already accept Paul so I can take his teachings and use them to test people of this day.

Since the sinlessness of Mary depends on the deity of Christ then I would could not concieve of questioning it. To question it would be to deny that Jesus is God. It would be to insult Jesus for a Catholic who understands the reason why Mary needs to be sinless.

This is like wondering if Jesus had a wife. The only reason to do this is maybe because someone who denies His divinity influences me.

See a Catholic must submit to believing that God preserves truth and makes it available to us. Now that would be negated if Catholicism is not true.
This is why I recommended you read the Perversion of Protestantism, (I know the title sounds horrible) but bear with me. (I do not equate Protestantism with people but with the philosophy)
I will PM you an excerpt if you want, but it explains the necessity of truth and how it must be available to all generations.
If your interpretation does not match those of the early Christians then I would question that unless you are infallible.
Since I am pretty sure you don’t claim infallibility then that means you could be wrong, me too.
No one reads the Bible in a vacuum there is always interpretation. It all boils down to “says who”.
Truth is preserved by God so there must be an infallible truth available or truth doesn’t matter.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[kbmorri]

I have a number of sincere questions about Roman Catholic authority. I am trying to understand how Roman Catholics think and why they think that way. After trying to wrestle with issues on the periphery of the faith and getting unsatisfactory responses at times on questions that divide Roman Catholics with other Christians, I have come back to this: Authority. It is perhaps, I think, the core issue that divides many of us, regrettably.

1. I have read that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Roman C doctrine? Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace?
2. I have noticed that many RC apologists have difficulties in defending certain RC doctrines. For example, the otherwise well argumented Catholic Christianity, by RC apologist Peter Kreeft, is in my opinion markedly weak in defending such doctrines as the Assumption of Mary or the sinlessness of Mary. Yet, in spite of the difficulties, he makes the attempt because he is trying to explain the Catechism. On Catholic Answers, it seems that posters feel obliged sometimes to present even the most fatuous defenses of RC doctrine, again in my respectful opinion, on such issues as Marian devotion. Is RC doctrine such that you must accept it all or accept none of it? Is there a certain “domino theory” at work, that if a rather minor aspect of the modern RC faith such as, for example, purgatory, were to be put in doubt, the entire faith would come crashing down?
3. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium? Does authority come from the perceived granting to Peter the keys to the Kingdom as Pope? Or does it come from the perceived holiness of the bishops? If the Pope and a majority of the bishops were not leading holy lives, would the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture on issues such as the Assumption or birth control still be binding on all Roman Catholics?
4. A number of councils and popes prior to Vatican II have pronounced that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Following Vatican II, Evangelicals and Othodox believers are now considered “separated bretheren”. I have heard all the explanations for this and how this does not really represent a change in doctrine. However, I remain unconvinced. Can the RC church change its doctrine so radically in this and other ways and still maintain “authority”.

Thanks, sorry for the prolix questions and God Bless.

I would’t be suprised if these kind of questions is how the church started the split in the first place. People being of their own free will, will have opinions on subjects that strike a cord with them. Our church leaders which in sheer numbers and especially dedication are trying to keep the Catholic church as pure as it can with the ever advancing years. There isn’t anything wrong with having an opinion on a said subject. I just feel I trust in the Catholic church teachings than in my own emotional and sometimes missdirected opinion. Remember, the church is infallible and the teachings must also be infallible, but people, even popes are in fact people with free wills and can be seduced by the devil like anybody else. At least we don’t have multiple upon multiple denominations teaching sometimes drastically different things. I just trust the Catholic church even with things I may not completely agree with or more than likely understand, than believe in a church where I have considerably more questions and problems with their lack of unity and lack of history.

 

[ricmat]

Thanks for your response. So what the RC church is saying is that justification by “faith” is not simply putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Saviour and God. It is also putting your faith and trust in:

1. The RC church’s interpretation of Scripture
2. The RC’s additions to Scripture, which are not contained in Scripture, which is believes have come through tradition
3. The RC church’s view on morality, including such issues as birth control.

Have I got this right? I don’t want to misrepresent the Roman position.

Assuming this is right, it would then follow that liberal Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng, are not justified (or “saved” in Evangelical terminology) in spite of having been baptised, and thus are rejecting eternal life.

Regarding #3, it would also follow that the more than 80% of RCs in the US that use birth control, or the similarly high number of baptised RCs here in Spain, that use birth control, are not justified (or “saved”) and are also rejecting eternal life.

I think I am now even more confused (or surprised) than before, but I thank you for graciously bearing with me.

Regarding the CC’s interpretation of scripture - So is it better to have a single authoritative interpretation, or “every man for himself” interpretations which contradict each other?

Regarding “additions to scripture” - if you mean, the Deutrocanonical books of the Old Testament - you should note that the “scriptures” which Jesus read from in the synagogue were from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures, with the same books that the Church accepts as canon. They were later removed from Protestant bibles.

Regarding item 3 - My understanding is that is questioning church teachings (privately) is not wrong per-se so long as you accept them and seek to discover the truth they contain. Others can probably explain this better than I can (or they may disagree with me). But it is good to realize that none of us are smart enough to understand everything, so at some point we must accept some things based on faith - that the powers of evil will not prevail against the Church and its teachings.